Sections 1-19
3 NOVEMBER 2005
1. CHAIRMAN: Good morning. I am sorry these
proceedings have had to go on for three and a half days, but there
have been other pressing matters happening in Parliament to attend
to during the afternoon. I hope to be able to complete the whole
operation by 11 o'clock this morning, but I would like Mr Cooper
to come and elaborate a little on what he was talking about yesterday
on pedicabs.
MR JOHN COOPER, Recalled
Examined by MR CLARKSON (continued)
2. CHAIRMAN:
Mr Cooper?
(Mr Cooper) I would
like to read a statement about the pedicabs' clauses which further
elaborates the Government's position. The Government wants to
see a tighter regulatory regime for pedicabs than the simple registration
system which would be established by these clauses. The Government
recognises the clauses may be helpful in addressing the concerns
of the London boroughs on traffic offences concerning pedicabs,
but the position remains that the clauses in isolation do not
address the principal concerns expressed by those concerned with
safety. That is why TfL's plans for regulation are so important
and must be taken forward at the same time.
3. If they are not, what would you propose
to do or what would you like the Committee to do?
(Mr Cooper) We
would need to go back to ministers for a decision and ministers
are expecting TfL to come forward with wider proposals and that
is all I can say at this time.
4. Will those wider proposals require legislation
or amendment at this stage of the discussion?
(Mr Cooper) I think
that is a reference to the separate proposals that are in development
by TfL for a licensing regime.
5. ANNE SNELGROVE: Can you tell us how
long this process is likely to be?
(Mr Cooper) I am afraid I cannot
comment on that. I do not know.
6. Is it imminent at all? You do not know anything
about the length?
(Mr Cooper) That
is down to Transport for London to determine how long it will
take.
7. DAVID MUNDELL: I had understood from
the previous evidence, but I may be mistaken, that in fact this
Bill could not be amended to incorporate these provisions because
it would change the scope of the Bill. Is that how you understand
it?
(Mr Cooper) That
is how I understand it.
8. CHAIRMAN: You need parallel measures
taken outside the scope of this Bill to make this Bill acceptable
to the Government.
(Mr Cooper) I would
prefer not to comment any further at this stage, I am afraid,
without the Minister's decision.
9. Mr Clarkson, would you like to put any questions
to Mr Cooper?
10. MR CLARKSON: No, thank you. What
I can do is, in due course, hand forward an email that we sent
to Mr Cooper and his team last night really setting out what has
been common knowledge for some time just so the Committee can
see how we put it and have a clear exposition. It is one-sheet
email, if you will accept it from us. (Same handed) Let
me make it plain this is unilateral in the sense it is coming
from our side and our response to the Government, but to be fair
to them there just was not time and it is as simple as this. It
is written to Mr Cooper and the first paragraph says it is following
up our conversation, the second paragraph is the important matter:
Just to clarify, the Bill only intends to deal with registration
since it would not be appropriate for it to include licensing
because that would be a sole function of TfL. The body of the
LTDN told me yesterday you believe TfL should be able to introduce
a licensing regime by August 2006. On that basis many of the concerns
that you expressed on behalf of the Secretary of State would appear
to be able to be resolved for licensing regime. The London boroughs
and Transport for London both need to have a registration scheme
in place to be able to issue a penalty charge notice for contravention
and the moving of parking control. This is the reason why this
joint bill is appropriate and essential to help deliver the improvements
in compliance, which are accepted by all parties as being essential.
Another good reason for this Bill being used to tackle the pedicabs
is that there is a need for a joint Bill to make various changes
in legislation which are contained in them, I am applying Section
50 of the 1974 Act and the provisions of the 2003 Act pedicabs
which could not be dealt with in a licensing bill or a TfL only
Bill. If the view is taken that additional regulation is also
needed for the licensing regime that would be a matter for a future
TfL Bill, but it would not be possible to incorporate the registration
system into that bill for London boroughs and then advice the
minister, et cetera, that we are looking for another reply and
there is internal remarks to the team, so to speak. It is the
main thrust, the unilateral aspect of it, that we lay before the
Committee as to the reason why we are doing and the way we are.
(Mr Cooper) If
I may comment. We have received the email. I have forwarded it
on to the correct policy contacts inside the Department for Transport
and we will reply in due course but I cannot comment any further
at this stage.
11. CHAIRMAN: Any points that colleagues
wish to put on this issue at this stage. In that case thank you
very much, Mr Cooper, perhaps you could withdraw.
12. MR CLARKSON: Perhaps I should have
emphasised the spirit of the last paragraph "if we do not
secure these provisions, then I see little hope of effective enforcement
action against those pedicab drivers who place pedestrians and
other road users at great risk by contravening the moving and
parking controls"
13. CHAIRMAN: Would you now, Mr Clarkson,
like to put your case for the point of procedure?
14. MR CLARKSON: Yes, I am in the Committee's
hands. What I would like to do is call Mr Lester. I have formally
to approve the unopposed clauses. I think we could do that very
quickly, but what I would like is Mr Lester to tell the Committee
the views of the Promoters on the particular aspects that were
raised yesterday by GOL and the Government, so if I can do it
in that way. I will call Mr Lester and it would be most useful
if you have the filled bill to hand and also the minutes of day
two. I will give Mr Lester a copy. (Same handed) If you
turn to page 20 of the minutes, top of the page under "Mr
Cooper" explain, would you, Mr Lester --- I beg your pardon
I am going to rewind now to go to page 23 and 173 and the Chairman
asking Ms Waldron to go through the clauses and four lines down
"there are two principal reasons why they objected to Clause
4 and Clause 11 because we think the provisions are unnecessary.
There are already adequate legislative provisions for the objectives
to be achieved. First please, Mr Lester, a quick cameo of what
Clause 4 does and then respond to Ms Waldron's point, would you?
(Mr Cooper) Clause
4, Chairman, provides an automatic exemption to parking and loading
controls for waste collection vehicles, so waste collection vehicles
that are emptying dustbins and emptying roadside litter bins and
it provides an automatic permission for them to stop, particularly
where no stopping is allowed, to collect the dustbins. It would
be possible to do this by order, but it is particularly laborious,
most of the orders in place have an exemption for the local authorities'
own vehicles but quite frequently these are now carried out by
contracted out services and so the authorities would have to amend
many hundreds, if not thousands, of orders to secure the legal
stopping by waste collection vehicles. It is particularly complex
on red routes, the TfL road network where TfL is the highway authority,
but the borough council is the authority responsible for waste
collection and this provides a very much more straightforward,
a streamlined and simplified measure of dealing with a particular
issue.
15. Have you heard anybody suggest it is exceptionable
for such vehicles to stop in the performance of their function?
(Mr Cooper) Absolutely
not.
16. Five please, this is also a Government
objection going to Ms Waldron because they say they are working
on regulations to deal with this, I believe. Explain, first of
all, what it says.
(Mr Cooper) Five
and six run together and they deal with the cases where vehicles
are clamped and then the clamp is unlawfully removed. It is a
criminal offence to remove a clamp unlawfully, but you have to
catch the person in the act and with people like Angle-Grinder
Man who advertises his services to come and angle-grind clamps
off, it is not always possible unless you catch the person in
the act to identify and therefore prosecute them for illegal removal
of the clamp. It is a particular benefit for the driver because
not only do they get their car back, sometimes more quickly, but
they do not have to pay the release fees. These two clauses would
provide that even if the clamp was unlawfully removed they would
have to continue to pay the release fees and therefore the incentive
to get the clamp unlawfully removed would be eliminated. Clause
5 deals with the regulations and the law, as it stands at the
moment. Clause 6 gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations
to this effect under the Traffic Management Act and that power
does not currently exist within the Act. So if we were to leave
the Traffic Management Act as it stands and Clause 6 did not go
through, it would not be possible for the Secretary of State to
make regulations to this effect.
17. Would it be fair to summarise those two
clauses as picking up two lacunae?
(Mr Cooper) It
is picking up one lacuna in two different ways: one immediately
under the current legislation and one once the Traffic Management
Act is in place. I could give some indication of the scale of
the problem that we have: in some cases up to seven per cent of
clamps illegally removed. In Waltham Forest last year that was
just over seven per cent, 600 illegally removed; Lambeth had 180
clamps illegally removed, so the numbers are significant. Westminster
has six clamps illegally removed every month on average. It is
a significant problem in reality that we are trying to address
in Clauses 5 and 6.
18. Angle-Grinder Man is both busy and peripatetic,
is he?
(Mr Cooper) Indeed,
he is certainly peripatetic, but it is impossible to say how many
clamps he removed as opposed to other people removing.
19. Summarise 7, please, Government concern
about that through Ms Waldron.
(Mr Cooper) Seven
and eight are also linked because they relate to the same issue.
They are limits on time within which either a notice to owner
in parking cases or a penalty charge notice in traffic contraventions
can be issued and another lacuna that we find present is that
people are paying and then cancelling cheques or getting charged
but cancelling their credit card payments and at that point it
can often be too late to restart the enforcement procedure because
we have missed time limits.
| 
